Six months after Epsom and Ewell Borough Council quietly authorised the use of its reserves to cover a dilapidations bill of up to £500,000 at the Rainbow Leisure Centre, the six basic questions this paper put to the Councillor who approved that decision remain unanswered. Not because the council disputes the facts. Not because litigation prevents comment. But because, first, it said the matter was commercially sensitive; then, once an election was called, it said the law forbade a response; and now that the election is over, it has offered residents a statement about gym upgrades instead.

The common thread through every stage of this story is one councillor: Neil Dallen (RA Town), Chair of the Strategy and Resources Committee, who signed off the original urgent decision, chaired the meeting where questions about it were cut off, and has twice found a procedural reason not to say how the bill arose.

A smooth handover, on paper

Rainbow Leisure Centre transferred from its operator of 22 years, GLL, to Places Leisure on 1 October 2025. The council’s own account, recorded in the Urgent Decision document later obtained by this paper, describes an unremarkable changeover: no break in service, a deal offering “significantly more income than the Council had been receiving,” and a pre-handover check by an external consultant intended to confirm the building “would be handed back in good condition.” That check, the document specifies, “was not an invasive analysis.”

Within weeks, Places identified a long list of problems: faults in fire alarms, lifts, seating, glazing, sanitaryware, ventilation, damp, possible roof cracks, and machinery officers now describe as at “end of life.” Some were flagged as health and safety risks requiring immediate action.

December: a £500,000 estimate, marked not for publication

On 17 December 2025, under the reference DEC 158, the council took an Urgent Decision — a mechanism used when a matter cannot wait for the ordinary committee cycle — authorising its Section 151 officer to finalise dilapidations negotiations with Places. The document, marked “OFFICIAL SENSITIVE – NOT FOR PUBLICATION” and exempted under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, put the likely cost at up to £500,000, to be met initially from the council’s dilapidations reserve and recovered from GLL only “in due course” — with the same document conceding the council “must accept that it will not be able to recover the Places claim in its entirety.” Cllr Dallen was consulted as committee chair and recorded his view in two words: “Happy to support.”

The decision stayed confidential until this paper obtained and published it in January.

January to March: leak, backlash, and the first stonewall

The story prompted sharp criticism from opposition councillors, who accused the ruling Residents’ Association of secrecy and complacency. The council’s public response — attributed to Dallen and Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village)— framed the transfer as “an exciting new chapter” and declined to discuss “terms and financial arrangements” as commercially sensitive. GLL, for its part, maintained it had fixed everything flagged by the pre-handover survey and handed the building back to the required standard.

This paper submitted a Freedom of Information request on 13 January seeking the lease’s inspection clauses, any log of landlord inspections or condition surveys since 2003, records identifying the backlog and its cost, and evidence of when councillors were first told. The council took over two months to respond, and released only a handful of lease clauses.

At the Strategy and Resources Committee on 27 January, Cllr Chris Ames (Labour Court) pressed Dallen, as chair, on why the decision had been kept confidential and whether a public-interest test had ever been carried out. Dallen confirmed he had supported both the decision and its confidential status, then closed the matter down: “It is my meeting… I have made a decision there is going to be no further comments.”

The survey that two accounts can’t both describe

A letter to this paper from Cllrs Ames and James Lawrence (Independent College), following the Audit and Scrutiny Committee’s March meeting, surfaced a direct conflict in how the council has characterised the pre-handover survey. The Assistant Director for Corporate Services told that committee that consultants Carter Jonas had been commissioned to carry out “a very detailed survey of the whole leisure centre.” But in June 2025, recommending the Places contract to the Strategy and Resources Committee, the same officer described the exercise as a stock condition report commissioned merely to “inform the procurement process,” on the basis that the council “has been very satisfied” with how the centre had been run and that it was, “overall,” in good condition.

Both descriptions cannot comfortably be true of the same piece of work — and neither sits easily with the Urgent Decision document’s own characterisation of the survey as “not an invasive analysis.” This paper has been unable to establish which account is accurate, because the council has refused to release the survey itself, citing legal professional privilege.

April and May: an election as a shield

As the 7th May East Surrey Unitary Council elections approached — in which Dallen was himself a candidate — the council declined to answer a detailed list of questions this paper put to him on 24 March, citing Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, which bars councils from publishing material designed to influence political support. Independent expert opinion obtained by this paper, from Nathan Elvery, former Chief Executive of Croydon Council, concluded the questions posed were “factual in character” and that a response “would not constitute political publicity within the meaning of the Act” — the council, he noted, was “not being asked to promote a political position; it is being asked to account for its stewardship of public funds.” Cllr Hannah Dalton (RA Stoneleigh) relied on the same provision to avoid unrelated questions about a separate governance matter.

A subsequent FOI request established that the decision to invoke Section 2 in Dallen’s case involved the Chief Executive, the Monitoring Officer, senior communications officers, and Dallen himself — yet the council said it held no record of the legal or governance advice behind that decision. The guidance document it pointed to as its basis, meanwhile, explicitly permits councils to continue normal business and to publish factual information during an election period.

Dallen finally responded on 18 May, twelve days after polling. The response answered none of the substantive questions this paper had posed two months earlier about how the dilapidations arose; it repeated that “details relating to terms and financial arrangements are commercially sensitive.”

June: privilege claimed, release refused

On 18 June the council upheld its refusal to disclose the 2025 inspection report or any related backlog, dilapidation or financial exposure documents, now citing Section 42 of the Freedom of Information Act — legal professional privilege — on the basis that litigation was “a live issue” and the council was “already talking to our lawyers.” This paper’s request for internal review had argued the exemption was being applied as a blanket, rather than document by document, and that routine inspection and survey material does not become privileged merely because litigation is later contemplated. The council’s review upheld the original refusal in full. This paper is now preparing a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

29 June to 6 July: the same six questions, and no answers

With the election well behind it, this paper wrote to Dallen again on 29 June, posing six direct questions: did GLL hide the dilapidations; did the handover survey fail to report them accurately; is the scale of the dilapidations agreed by the council; did they arise in the gap between survey and occupation; is there another explanation; and which parties are under consideration for legal action. The council’s communications team acknowledged the request that evening and asked for a deadline — a response was received on 6 July, attributed to Dallen. It addressed none of the six questions. It described the transfer as “the beginning of an exciting new chapter,” referenced planned investment in the gym, studios and changing rooms, and reiterated that financial arrangements remain commercially sensitive.

Ames states: “”The holes in the administration’s story are so big they do not need an expert survey to locate them. It is obvious that it used the urgent decision process to cover up its own incompetence and negligence and that it has continued the cover-up ever since. When the issue comes before the Audit and Scrutiny Committee next week, I expect the administration to use every trick in the book – plus a few new ones – to hide the truth from residents, but I and other councillors are determined not to let this happen.”

Where this stands

Four explanations remain on the table for how a “very detailed” — or, on the council’s alternative account, non-invasive — pre-handover survey and an uneventful transfer became a £500,000 liability within three months: that GLL was not straight about the building’s condition; that the council failed to inspect or enforce its rights as landlord across more than two decades; that the survey’s scope was too narrow to catch what mattered; or that Places has overstated what it found. Each implicates a different party, and each is precisely why the underlying documents matter.

What is not contested is the pattern: a councillor who authorised the spending, chaired the meeting where it was challenged, and has since given two different procedural reasons — commercial sensitivity, then election law — for not answering the same six questions about how it happened.

Residents who ultimately fund the shortfall are still waiting for a plain account of why.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports:

Epsom & Ewell Council blocks release of Rainbow Leisure Centre condition papers – 2 July 2026

Epsom Council Rainbow Centre secrecy row deepens over “pre-election silence” advice – 23 June 2026

No end to Epsom’s Rainbow Leisure Centre controversy – May 2026

Dalton and Dallen double-down disclosure denial – 30 April 2026

Epsom and Ewell Council transparency row erupts as council backs publication of urgent decisions – 17 March 2026

“It’s my meeting”: Cllr Dallen stops questions about his role in alleged Rainbow “cover-up” – 23 February 2026

Cllr Dallen accused of £1/2m Epsom & Ewell Council cover-up – 14 January 2026

Children aged five to 15 in England will be able to travel free on local buses throughout August as part of a Government summer cost-of-living support package.

The free travel offer will run from 1 August to 31 August and is intended to help families reduce the cost of summer holiday journeys to parks, museums, beaches, cinemas, theatres and other attractions.

The Department for Transport says the scheme will apply to local bus services in England. Families are already able to benefit from free travel for children under five across the main bus operators.

Roads Minister Simon Lightwood visited Bath on Thursday 9 July to meet local leaders and bus companies ahead of the scheme’s launch.

The measure forms part of the Government’s “Great British Summer Savings” scheme, which also includes temporary reductions aimed at cutting the cost of children’s meals, cinema and theatre tickets, and admission to family attractions such as theme parks, adventure centres and soft play venues.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said:

“Great British Summer Savings means more people can be excited about getting out and about this summer, whether it’s seeing the Roman Baths, learning something new at the Science Museum, or falling asleep on the bus ride home after a day riding rollercoasters at Alton Towers.

“I know that the cost of living is a concern for households across the UK, which is why we’re cutting the cost of the day-to-day, with free bus travel for children this summer and the £3 bus fare cap helping more families make the most of the small plans that make life enjoyable.”

The Government says the free children’s travel offer comes alongside the extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027, and follows the first rail fare freeze in 30 years.

Ministers say they are also investing £3 billion nationally to improve bus services and support local leaders and operators in delivering more reliable services.

Helen Godwin, Mayor of the West of England, said:

“I am so excited that Kids Go Free is back again. We know what a massive impact this has had for families in the West, helping kids explore the best of the West and putting money back in parents’ pockets.

“I am thrilled that the Government has seen how successful our scheme has been, and that Kids Go Free is going national for August. This will give West Country families the chance to explore even further.”

VisitEngland Director Andrew Stokes said:

“It’s fantastic to see free bus travel for children as the summer holidays get underway, supporting families to get out and explore the outstanding attractions and destinations across England in a stress-free and environmentally friendly way.

“Whether enjoying a trip to our stunning seaside destinations, beautiful countryside or our vibrant city attractions, there is so much to discover during the summer across England. I know our tourism and hospitality businesses will be very pleased to see you.”

Editor’s note:

The free bus travel scheme applies to children aged five to 15 in England during August 2026. It should be checked locally whether any particular operator or route is excluded before travel.

A new centre designed to support people with sight and hearing loss across Surrey has officially opened in Ashtead, strengthening services for thousands of residents living with sensory impairments.

The centre, operated by Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey, was officially opened last week by Councillor Tim Hall MBE, Chair of Surrey County Council, alongside Christine Wilmshurst, Chair of Trustees at Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey, during a special event attended by staff, volunteers, supporters and local partners.

Located at Bridgehead House, which is owned and was refurbished by Surrey County Council, the new facility will provide an accessible and welcoming hub where residents who are blind, partially sighted, Deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind can access information, advice, specialist support and community activities.

The centre has been designed to enhance the charity’s ability to deliver services across the county and meet growing demand, helping people maintain their independence, wellbeing and social connections.

Tim Hall, Chair of Surrey County Council, said: “It was a pleasure to officially open this fantastic new facility. Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey provides invaluable support to residents across the county, and this new centre will strengthen the charity’s ability to make a positive difference in the lives of people with sensory impairments and their families.

“We are proud that Surrey County Council has supported this project through the refurbishment of Bridgehead House, creating a modern and accessible space that will benefit residents for many years to come.”

Christine Wilmshurst, Chair of Trustees at Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey, said: “The opening of our new Ashtead centre represents an exciting new chapter for the charity. It is a truly transformational time, and we could not have done it without the leadership, passion, dedication and hard work from everyone involved in the project. We are committed to ensuring that people living with sight and hearing loss have access to the support, resources, and opportunities they need to live independently and confidently.

“This centre will be a place where people can find practical help, social connection, and a strong sense of community.”

The opening reflects a shared commitment between Surrey County Council and Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey to improve accessibility, reduce isolation and empower people to live full and independent lives.

Sinead Mooney, Surrey County Council’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, added: “The team at Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey do a fantastic job advocating for and supporting people who have sensory needs.  As a valued partner delivering services, they make a real difference every day, and we were pleased to work with them to refurbish Bridgehead House and turn it into a centre that will meet the needs of the people they support for many years to come.

“This work is another example of how we are making sure Surrey is fit for the future and passing on a strong legacy of support.”

Each year, Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey supports more than 8,500 children and adults through specialist advice, rehabilitation services, assistive technology support, advocacy, social groups and wellbeing programmes.

For more information about Sensory Services by Sight for Surrey and the services available at the new Ashtead centre, visit www.sightforsurrey.org.uk

Surrey County Council

Image: Christine and Tim Hall Cutting Ribbon

Last night Councillors unanimously approved the council’s own application to replace ageing air-conditioning plant at Epsom Playhouse with a modern heat pump system, in a decision expected to cut the theatre’s reliance on fossil fuels.

The scheme, brought to committee because the council itself is the applicant, will see five redundant roof-mounted air conditioning condensers and a gas-fired boiler removed from the roof of the Ashley Avenue theatre and replaced with six air source heat pumps and four condenser units. The new equipment will sit within a 1.8-metre acoustic screen to control noise.

Presenting the report, a planning officer told the committee the works would modernise the Playhouse’s building services and “contribute towards the council’s net-zero objectives, and reduce the building’s reliance on fossil fuels.” Because the theatre adjoins the Grade II listed 47-51 South Street and sits next to the Epsom Town Conservation Area, officers had assessed the impact on the setting of those heritage assets, concluding it would cause “less than substantial harm” — but that this harm was outweighed by the public benefit of the energy efficiency improvements.

The council’s Environmental Health Officer raised no objection, subject to a condition requiring a report confirming noise from the new plant does not exceed 37 dB — measured at the nearest habitable window, at neighbouring properties including 39 South Street.

Cllr Alison Kelly (LibDem Stamford) asked officers whether any images were available of how visible the new acoustic screening would be from street level. The officer explained that although the fencing would stand 1.8 metres high in total, most of it would sit behind the existing roof parapet, meaning only around 1.3 metres would be visible — and only from the Ashley Avenue side of the building, a route she described as “a public thoroughfare, but not well used.”

As a verbal update, members were told Surrey County Council’s Highway Authority had raised no objection, and the scheme had received support from the Theatres Trust.

Following the questions, the application was approved unanimously subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the officers’ report — including a requirement that the equipment be removed within a month of any future cessation of use, to protect the setting of the neighbouring listed building.

Drummond Gardens: committee refuses to fell veteran oak and three poplars, approves loss of six other protected trees

The most contentious item of the evening concerned an application to fell ten trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders at Drummond Gardens, a 1930s apartment block off Christ Church Mount, after the block’s managing agents argued the trees were causing subsidence damage to the building.

The application sought consent to fell four English oaks within the private grounds of Drummond Gardens, and six Lombardy poplars in the adjoining, council-owned Long Grove Park. Following a lengthy and detailed presentation from the council’s Tree Officer, members voted to approve felling of six of the ten trees, refuse felling of the remaining four, and instead require substantial crown reduction pruning of those four as a compromise measure.

A long-running subsidence dispute

The officer explained that Drummond Gardens has “a long history of building movement,” with cracking on the building’s west-facing wall having worsened in recent years, most severely around flats 26 to 31. A potential insurance claim was first notified to the council in 2020, but was deferred at the time because the trees involved were protected and there was insufficient evidence — including missing structural engineering and level-monitoring data — to justify their removal. That evidence has since been gathered, including a structural engineer’s report, drainage surveys, and building level monitoring carried out between 2021 and 2024.

He told members the building’s foundations are shallow — between 45 and 68 centimetres deep in most places, save for a section towards the south-west corner that was partially underpinned to a depth of two to three metres in 1995. He explained that foundations of this shallow depth are “inadequate by modern standards” on clay soil, particularly where trees are nearby, though he noted that “many properties with shallow foundations on clay coexist with trees without suffering subsidence.”

Root samples recovered during site investigations were not starch-tested, meaning there is no scientific confirmation of whether they were alive at the time they were dug up — a gap in the evidence that came up more than once during member questions.

Tree-by-tree recommendations

The assessment, illustrated with photographs of each tree, distinguished between:

• Oaks T5 and T6 — two middle-aged oaks close to the point of greatest recorded building movement. Mr Young said these were “clearly implicated in causing subsidence damage,” noting that even after a neighbouring oak was removed in 2020, level monitoring still showed a seasonal pattern of movement associated with these two trees. Because they are still young enough to grow significantly larger, he judged the future risk to be high and recommended felling.
• Oak T12 — a small, suppressed specimen tucked behind the veteran oak, recommended for felling as being of low amenity value.
• Oak T9 — a “transitionary veteran” oak estimated to be around 160 years old, likely a survivor of the field-boundary hedgerow that predates Drummond Gardens itself. Mr Young recommended this tree be retained, explaining that because the tree pre-dates the building, its long-term extraction of moisture from the clay soil may already have caused the ground — and the building above it — to settle to a lower level than it would otherwise sit at. Felling the tree now, he warned, risks the reverse effect: the ground swelling back upwards (“heave”) as the soil rehydrates, potentially causing fresh damage. He noted the tree shows signs of naturally “retrenching” — dying back at the crown and roots as it ages — which may explain readings showing the building had actually risen slightly over the past winter. His recommendation was crown reduction rather than felling.
• Lombardy poplars T22, T23 and T24 — recommended for felling. These are the three poplars closest to the corner of the building where subsidence has been recorded, and Mr Young noted they also have decay at old “topping” points from previous pruning, reducing their safe life expectancy and increasing the risk of branch failure onto the more open part of the garden nearby.
• Poplars T20, T21 and T25 — recommended for retention with substantial crown reduction (cutting back the canopy by around a third), rather than felling. Mr Young said building movement at this end of the site was slight, “within building tolerance,” and that there was no clear evidence any single poplar was responsible for seasonal movement.

Member questions

Before discussion began, Chair Cllr Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) noted for the record that he — and, he believed, other members — had been contacted directly by the Drummond Gardens Property Group, but stressed the committee was approaching the item “with an open mind.”

Cllr Neil Dallen (RA Town) asked whether the council would be financially liable if the committee’s decision were followed but further damage subsequently occurred. Head of Development Management and Planning Enforcement, confirmed that in principle it could be, “but they would need to do additional work to prove that.” Cllr Dallen also queried how much weight the committee should give to the council’s financial exposure in reaching what would normally be a purely planning judgement. The officer confirmed this was a legitimate material consideration in this case, given “the financial risk to the council… could be significant, depending on the extent of works that are required to the building.”

Cllr James Lawrence (Independent College) questioned the internal consistency of the recommendation, noting that Oak T9 sat close to boreholes where oak roots had been recovered — comparable evidence, he suggested, to that used to justify felling T5 and T6 — and that T9 did not show the hollowing typically associated with veteran trees. He also queried whether the level of crown reduction proposed for the poplars was proportionate, given it would need to be repeated regularly and would itself reduce the trees’ amenity value. Mr Young responded that the key distinction was vigour: T5 and T6 remain in active growth and have significant capacity to expand their root systems further, whereas T9, as an ageing tree past its physiological peak, was more likely to be naturally reducing its water demand rather than increasing it. He added that without DNA root testing, it was not possible to say definitively which poplars’ roots lay beneath the building, and that felling all six risked being “quite a scorched earth approach.”

Cllr Alison Kelly asked what risk of heave would arise if the committee took a “wholesale” approach and approved felling of all ten trees, and whether that would carry legal liability. The tree officer explained the heave risk applied specifically to the veteran oak, T9, because of its age relative to the building, but not materially to the younger oaks or the poplars, which post-date or are roughly contemporary with the building’s construction and would not have caused the ground to subside below its original level.

Cllr Robert Leach (RA Nonsuch) praised the report as “an excellent, well-written report, well-researched, well-argued, factually based,” noting that his initial assumption — that the tree officer was simply recommending wholesale felling — had not survived a proper reading of the evidence. Vice-Chair Cllr Phil Neale (RA Cuddington) echoed the praise for the report’s thoroughness, and asked whether it was coincidental that the two highest-value trees on the council’s own amenity valuation (T9 and T20) were also the two recommended for retention. Mr Young said the correlation was not the basis for his recommendation; rather, T20 and the other retained poplars back onto a more sheltered part of the group, whereas T22–T24 sit closer to an open area of garden where a falling branch would have nowhere else to land.

Responding to a question from the Chair about future monitoring, the officer confirmed that if building movement continued despite the works being carried out, officers would review whether other, currently unimplicated trees might be responsible. He confirmed that ongoing level monitoring would be carried out by the private landowner’s own structural engineer, not the council.

Decision

The committee voted to approve the officers’ recommendation in full: refusing consent to fell Oak T9 and Poplars T20, T21 and T25, on the grounds of insufficient evidence of a direct causal link to the subsidence and the harm their loss would cause to environmental quality and amenity; and approving felling of Oaks T5, T6 and T12 and Poplars T22, T23 and T24, together with crown reduction works to the four retained trees, subject to conditions.

Officers’ report put a figure on what was at stake: felling all ten trees would have represented a loss of public amenity valued, using the industry-standard CAVAT (Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees) methodology, at £954,480. The committee’s part-refusal reduces that loss to £387,818.

Upcoming applications

Members briefly noted a report listing applications likely to come before the committee in September, including a called-in application at Langley Bottom Farm concerning a variation to affordable housing obligations, a residential care home proposed south of Oak Glade, and a 48-dwelling scheme across two flat buildings at Swail House, Ashley Road. A site visit to Swail House has already been requested and will be arranged ahead of that meeting.

Cllr Alison Kelly raised a query about tree and ground-levelling works she had observed while cycling past a site off Christ Church Road, near Oak Glade, asking whether it involved any protected trees. An officer said she understood the activity related to dormouse survey work, which requires regular checking of monitoring tubes, though officers agreed to look into the specific site and confirm whether any tree works taking place required scrutiny.

Sam Jones – Reporter

.

Related reports:

Epsom Playhouse gets a 40 year uplift

Our Star shines on Epsom Playhouse

Residents from across Surrey are invited to get involved to help shape the brand identities of the new East and West Surrey councils.

These councils will need to create their own distinct brand identities, to help everyone recognise who is delivering local services from April 2027.

The new brands will be created at no cost by designers working in councils across Surrey. To help inform these designs, residents, businesses, council staff, partners and community groups across Surrey to have a say on the future visual identities of the new East Surrey and West Surrey councils.

This is the first phase of a wider programme of engagement to help shape the new councils.

A survey has been created for people to share their views. This will be available to complete in the 52 libraries across the county to ensure a broad range of voices are heard. We are asking residents to share your views on:

*           What makes our area unique?

*           What are you most proud of?

*           What should your future council’s look and feel reflect?

Insights gathered from the survey will be used to help create the new logos and brands for East Surrey and West Surrey Councils.  This means that each brand will reflect the distinct views of the people in each area.

Residents have until 3 August to complete a short survey, more information can be found on https://www.surreylgrhub.gov.uk/your-future-surrey

Councillor Steve Wotton, the Leader of East Surrey Shadow Authority said: “We are committed to making East Surrey a place where people thrive. There is a lot to do, but this is a real opportunity to take a new approach, designing a council that is open, transparent and genuinely focused on delivering outcomes for residents, businesses and communities. Creating a new brand identity for East Surrey is an important step as we move forward. This engagement is about understanding what people like about where they live and what makes their communities unique. I would encourage residents, businesses, partners, colleagues and community groups to take part and help shape a brand that truly reflects East Surrey.”

Councillor Paul Follows, the Leader of West Surrey Shadow Authority added: “Our focus remains on creating a council that delivers high-quality services, provides value for money and meets the needs of residents, businesses and communities across west Surrey. This engagement is an opportunity for people across West Surrey to help define how we present ourselves as a new council. We’re not asking for views on logos or designs, but on what really matters to our communities – the character, feel and identity of the area. By taking part, residents can shape the new West Surrey brand and ensure this is a people’s brand. We are also committed to keeping costs to a minimum, so I am delighted that the new brand will be created in-house, with designers working in all councils.”

Surrey County Council

Surrey County Council’s Prison Social Care Team has been rated ‘good’ by the Care Quality Commission for the dignified support it provides to people in custody with care needs.

The specialist team provides adult social care across five prisons and an approved premises in Surrey, supporting people with dementia, mental health needs, learning disabilities, autism, and sensory and physical disabilities. The team supports prisoners who struggle with daily living tasks, helping them engage with prison services and prepare for a smoother transition on release.

Following an inspection in May, the CQC rated the team ‘good’ across all areas and identified ‘outstanding’ practice in delivering evidence-based care and treatment.

Inspectors praised staff for treating prisoners with kindness and compassion, respecting their dignity and taking a non-judgmental approach.

“People told us their care needs were met, and they liked the staff who supported them,” the report said. “They said the staff were kind and caring and treated them with respect and dignity. People and their relatives were satisfied with the service. People felt their needs were met and they received personalised care and were able to make choices in the way they were supported.”

The report highlighted positive feedback from people the team supports and their relatives, including praise for a staff member who had “stuck by me through all my growing pains” and was “what you call a good social care worker.” Another comment said: “They are very kind and understand mental health which is good.”

Inspectors also recognised the team’s visible and supportive leadership, their collaborative approach with partner services and the effective systems in place to monitor quality, mitigate risk, ensure safe recruitment and maintain good infection control.

The team’s evidence-based approach to delivering care and treatment was found to be outstanding, with the report noting: “The provider always planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation.”

The Prison Social Care Team, part of the council’s wider mental health social care service, brings together social workers, occupational therapists and support workers. The team is unusual among councils in that every part of the prison social care service – from assessment and care planning through to the direct delivery of care – is delivered in-house.

The team supports people across Surrey’s five prisons – High Down, Downview, Bronzefield, Send and Coldingley – as well as St Catherine’s Approved Premises in Guildford, which supports people as they move from prison back into the community.

Sinead Mooney, Surrey County Council’s Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care, said: “This is a fantastic achievement and really shows the dedication and professionalism of our Prison Social Care Team. They’re a small team working in challenging settings and it’s great to see their compassionate, person‑centred care recognised for the impact it has. Alongside the ‘good’ rating for our wider adult social care service in 2024, this is another example of how the council is making sure services are effective for vulnerable residents.

“As we look ahead, we’re proud to be passing on a strong legacy for adult social care to the new councils. We have a talented and compassionate workforce, and our staff have the expertise to deliver a safe transition and ensure the new councils start well.”

The full report can be found on the CQC website.

To find out about Surrey County Council adult social care jobs, please visit our jobs page.

Surrey University

Major financial decisions across Surrey must now be taken by the newly formed councils – despite the fact they will not take over for almost a year.

Elections held in May voted in two new authorities, East and West Surrey. In April 2027 they will take over the running of public services in the county, and all existing councils will be dissolved.

As part of the process the Government has written to the outgoing bodies to say key monetary decisions now need to be approved by the incoming authorities.

This means land sales or contracts over £100,000 must be kicked up the ladder – as well as capital contracts of more than  £1m. It also covers staff contracts. 

The order covers Surrey County Council and all the boroughs and districts except for Woking and Spelthorne as they are under the control of Government appointed commissioners due to the state of their finances and need to rapidly improve bottom lines to reduce the huge debt West Surrey will be lumbered with.

The Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said  East and West Surrey should have a say on agreements to be entered to ensure they were in the best interests of the new councils or the residents of the areas they serve.

It would also ensure that any agreements do not undermine or diminish the anticipated benefits or savings as a result of unitarisation or have an effect on the financial position of the new councils.

In practice the old councils have already been operating under this model with the understanding that it would be formalised.

East and West Surrey Councils are expected to publish reports in the next few days that include recommendations into how services across two bodies will  be run from next year.

These will come to their respective shadow executives on July 20 and 21 for approval.

Chris Caulfield Local Democracy Reporter

Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government (image Google)

Guildford Cathedral has been granted permission to install security cameras around its listed premises through a fund to protect places of worship from violent attacks.

The cathedral will place 16 new security cameras both inside and outside its main building, which was made possible by the Home Office’s Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme.

Guildford Borough Council has now granted planning permission, giving the green light for these cameras to be installed across the Grade II* listed cathedral.

Planning documents submitted to the council read: “Due to the level of threat of terrorism in the UK remaining substantial, it is perceived that increasing the number of security cameras will help deter attacks on the premises of Guildford Cathedral. 

“This work has been advised by the UK government and they are funding the work.”

It comes after new legislation requiring premises to ramp up their security measures to safeguard against potential terror attacks was passed into law last year.

The Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill is also known as Martyn’s Law – named after Martyn Hett, who was killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.

A cathedral spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) they “welcome this investment” into these security systems, which comes as part of its response to this changing legislation.

They said: “We are grateful to the Home Office for awarding Guildford Cathedral funding through the Places of Worship Protective Security Scheme, which will enable us to install additional CCTV across the cathedral site. 

“The improvements will support our ongoing commitment to providing a safe, secure and welcoming environment for everyone who visits the cathedral.”

The colours of the new cameras were chosen to be as discreet as possible, according to planning documents, and will broadly match the render of the walls.

“Whilst measures have been taken to specify discreet cameras and place them in discreet locations, to anyone looking carefully at the cathedral’s fabric some will still be visible,” the documents say.

“However, their visual impact is of little significance when considered against the possibility of damage of which the cameras will help prevent.”

Council planning officers wrote in their approval that the cameras “would not have any adverse impact on the listed building”.

They added: “The proposed development, due to its scale and nature, coupled with the site’s location away from any other sensitive properties, would have no unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or overbearing impact.”

The UK terrorism threat level was raised from “substantial” to “severe” in April – meaning a terrorist attack is deemed highly likely within the next six months.

This designation came following the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green, North London.

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Guildford Cathedral (Credit: Google Maps)

There’s more Flat action at Epsom Racecourse this Thursday with six races to get stuck into across the evening; five handicaps and a fillies’ maiden.

Read on for a preview of and tips for the Epsom card, brought to you by BOYLE Sports, who have all the horse racing odds. 

First up is a mile and a half handicap for three-year-olds (18.05). Celestarak was a winner last time, while Darkest Red was only narrowly beaten. Zurna could be interesting, making his handicap debut for Julia and Shelley Birkett. Given that Darkest Red can go on any ground and looks favourably weighted here, he could be the one.

Race two is a seven-furlong two-year-old fillies’ maiden (18.40). Tiora Time and Chaise Longue are the only newcomers, but David Simcock’s Minnal brings the best form, having not been beaten too far at Doncaster on debut. Chaise Longue could be good on debut, though, forr her in-form trainer. 

Race three is a seven-furlong handicap (19.15). This looks a competitive affair, with plenty of good recent form on show. Dandy Khan looks to be down to a competitive mark now for Kim Boyle, while Jersey Maverick is a course and distance winner who also should be able to win off today’s mark. 

Next is a six-furlong handicap (19.50). King Of Chaos and Rage Of Thunder both won their latest starts, and both look hard pressed to reproduce that form today. Aberma Gold is a reasonably reliable sort who looks ready to go again, but Balon d’Or could be the one to beat here from a nice draw in two. 

The penultimate race is an extended mile handicap (20.22). Play Me is a course and distance winner and won here last time, while Ritaal could be down to a winnable mark and has first-time blinkers to help here. Swiped is another in first-time headgear and might be worth thinking about. 

We conclude with a 10-furlong three-year-olds’ handicap (20.52). The majority of the field are making their handicap debuts here, while the more experienced Sail On Sailor seeks a hat-trick. Sweep In Time is intriguing stepping up in trip for the first time here, a distance that ought to suit well. Living In Hope might be the one to cope with the undulations best, though. 

Epsom selections – Thursday:

18.05 – Darkest Red

18.40 – Chaise Longue 

19.15 – Dandy Khan

19.50 – Balon d’Or

20.22 – Swiped

20.52 – Living In Hope

Horses racing Image: Credit Paul. CC BY 2.0

Surrey County Council is deploying CCTV cameras from a Chinese manufacturer which has been banned from government departments over national security concerns.

Cameras made by Hikvision, a company partly owned by the Chinese state, are in use in council libraries in several towns and villages across Surrey.

These include sites in Guildford, Ash, Chertsey, Cobham, Farnham, Merstham and New Haw, according to a Freedom of Information response to the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS).

Chinese law dictates that any companies operating within China must hand over data to the government in Beijing on demand, which prompted the UK to stop the installation of Chinese-made surveillance cameras in “sensitive sites” across Westminster in 2022.

However, this directive does not apply to local government and other public sector bodies at present.

A Surrey County Council spokesperson told the LDRS that its library cameras operate as closed systems, meaning they are not connected to any corporate networks or the internet.

They said: “As a result, the primary risks normally associated with these devices – such as remote access or cyber vulnerabilities – do not apply in this case. The main residual risk would be physical access. However, all units are located within staff-only areas and are appropriately secured. Therefore, the risk level is considered low and appropriately managed within the current setup.”

Hikvision has also faced criticism over its alleged links to the mass repression of Uyghur Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region, where the company’s surveillance technology has been reportedly deployed. Hikvision denies any direct role in human rights abuses.

In 2022, a report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “serious human rights violations” had been committed against the Uyghur people of Xinjiang.

As many as one million Uyghurs are believed to have been detained in camps and across the region since 2017. The Chinese government denies human rights abuses, and claims the camps are for educational and training purposes.

But analysts have pointed to reports of forced labour and torture inflicted upon the Uyghurs, and have urged authorities in the UK to review their policies towards Hikvision.

Senior Policy Director at the China Strategic Risks Institute Sam Goodman told the LDRS: “After several years of public reporting regarding allegations of Hikvision’s links to human rights violations in Xinjiang and the government banning Hikvision from Whitehall citing national security concerns, there really isn’t an excuse for councils like Surrey County Council continuing to use these cameras.”

A Hikvision spokesperson told the LDRS their products meet “strict security requirements” and “comply fully” with UK laws and regulations.

They added: “Our position on human rights is a matter of public record. We have never knowingly or intentionally committed human rights abuses, and we never will. Hikvision has joined the UN Global Compact, committing to its Ten Principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Image: Hikvision CCTV camera (Credit: Pixabay)

.

.

.

Guildford’s MP has reiterated calls for a third railway station to be built in the town, saying public transport infrastructure “must be delivered” alongside new house building.

Zöe Franklin has urged the government to revive plans for a Guildford West train station, which would be located in the Park Barn area.

Plans for the new station have been floated as far back as the 1990s, but have yet to materialise despite advocates arguing it would boost connectivity to Royal Surrey County Hospital and the University of Surrey.

Ms Franklin told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “The western part of Guildford is growing rapidly.

“New housing developments will bring thousands of new residents to an area that’s already under-served by public transport.

“We must join up housing, transport and economic growth alongside infrastructure, not try to retro-fit it, when congestion and other problems have become ingrained and it becomes, I would argue, a much bigger project.”

If fully realised, Guildford West station would operate on the North Downs Line – which runs from Reading through Guildford and links up to Gatwick Airport.

In 2019, it was reported that the station could be on course to open by 2025, but the project is still yet to materialise. 

Surrey County Council reportedly set aside hundreds of thousands of pounds for the project over the years.

Surrey Live reported in January that the authority’s ambitions for the project remain unchanged, although further national funding would be needed for it to proceed.

Ms Franklin, who had been a Guildford Borough councillor before her election as an MP, added: “By providing a realistic alternative to car travel for thousands of existing and future residents, a new station could help reduce traffic-related emissions, supporting both local environmental objectives and national net-zero goals.”

She further said that Guilford’s high housing costs mean many of the town’s workers cannot afford to live locally, and that improving rail links would broaden the labour market for businesses.

“I’ve been supporting this project since I was first elected as a councillor to Guildford Borough Council nearly 20 years ago,” she said.

“Now representing Guildford as MP, it’s given me more opportunities and a louder voice to work on this in earnest.”

James Moules Local Democracy Reporter

Zöe Franklin At London Road Station (Credit: Zöe Franklin)

There was a lively atmosphere on Friday evening as the local running community gathered for the return of the Perch 2000 run.

Hosted by the Oddballs Running Club, the event returned after a hiatus, bringing together runners, supporters and volunteers for an evening of local sport on Epsom Downs.

The revival of the Perch 2000 was led by the club’s committee, with Peter Black and Mark playing key roles. Working with the Epsom & Walton Downs Conservators, the team secured the venue and dealt with the practical arrangements needed to bring the historic event back.

The organisers’ plans were then tested by soaring summer temperatures, which led to a safety-based postponement. The run was rescheduled by a week at short notice, with cooler conditions on Friday evening providing a safer setting for participants to take on the course.

Club member, local photographer and councillor Steven McCormick worked with Peter, Mark and the committee in support of the event’s return.

“It’s just fantastic to see everyone out here again,” Mr McCormick said. “The Oddballs committee put in a monumental amount of work to make this happen and to pull off the last-minute date change. Community events like this are the heartbeat of our local area.”

Mr McCormick was also on the sidelines photographing the runners. A gallery of race-day photographs is available to view and download on his website:

https://www.stevenmccormickphotography.com/f216411970

Mr McCormick is also a familiar face behind the camera at other local sporting events, including the annual Tadworth 10.

Brass in the Garden this Sunday

The Epsom & Ewell Silver Band will give its Summer Concert at the Old Moat Garden Centre this Sunday, starting at 5pm.

Tickets are available through the band’s website:

https://www.eesb.org.uk

The Perch 2000 image gallery can be viewed at:

https://www.stevenmccormickphotography.com/f216411970

Surrey Police recorded 1,551 thefts or unauthorised takings of motor vehicles in 2025, with charges or summonses recorded in 34 cases, according to Home Office figures analysed by the Liberal Democrats.

That represents a charge or summons rate of 2.19 per cent. In 1,150 cases — 74.15 per cent of the total — the recorded outcome was that the investigation had been completed with no suspect identified.

The figures put Surrey in the lower half of police forces in England and Wales for the proportion of vehicle-theft cases resulting in a charge or summons, but not at the very bottom.

Excluding the British Transport Police, Surrey’s 2.19 per cent rate was the 12th lowest among 43 territorial police forces. The overall England and Wales rate in the data was 2.45 per cent.

Surrey was also among the worse-performing forces for cases ending without a suspect being identified. Its 74.15 per cent figure was the eighth highest of the 43 territorial forces, although it was slightly below the England and Wales overall figure of 75.90 per cent.

In terms of the number of vehicle thefts, Surrey sat around the middle of the national table: its 1,551 recorded offences made it the 20th highest force area out of 43. The highest totals were recorded by the Metropolitan Police, with 31,534 offences, followed by West Midlands Police with 12,979.

Among Surrey’s neighbouring and nearby force areas, Sussex had a lower charge rate of 1.47 per cent, Hampshire 1.80 per cent and Hertfordshire 1.91 per cent. Thames Valley recorded 2.45 per cent and Kent 2.46 per cent. Surrey’s proportion of cases with no suspect identified was higher than in Thames Valley, where the figure was 64.22 per cent, and Kent, at 70.48 per cent, but lower than Sussex’s 80.02 per cent and Hertfordshire’s 77.42 per cent.

Helen Maguire, Liberal Democrat MP for Epsom and Ewell, said the statistics showed that too few vehicle thieves were being brought to justice.

She said: “Across Surrey, people rely on their cars to get to work, take their kids to school, and get themselves to the doctors and other essential services. It is completely unacceptable that 1,551 individuals and families in our county have had their vehicles stolen, with so few of those responsible ever brought to justice.

“How can we expect to deter would-be thieves from stealing people’s cars when so few criminals are actually being charged by Surrey Police? The Government is asleep at the wheel and people in Surrey are paying the price.

“We urgently need to restore proper community policing to tackle car theft. For too long forces have been left overstretched and underfunded, without the resources they need to respond.”

The Liberal Democrats are calling for more neighbourhood policing and for a specialist National Crime Agency team to bring together automatic number plate recognition data, insurance records, border intelligence and information from police forces to target organised vehicle-crime networks.

The figures relate to the offence category “theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle”. A charge or summons is one recorded outcome; cases may also have other outcomes not shown in the comparison.

Sam Jones – Reporter